… not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such; that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.

In reality, however, what we are witnessing is the ideological exhaustion of “Western liberal democracy” and therefore the last gasp of the fraud upon which it rests: the state, even its best form. No longer able to hide behind the Jeffersonian dream of constitutional freedom and order or the Lincolnian myth that the dream could be preserved at the expense of the principle upon which it was founded, the American state’s demise proves that “the final form of human government” has not yet arrived – not because a final form shouldn’t have arrived but because, for those who have had so much fun during historical times, the aftermath won’t be any fun. On the contrary, it will be “a very sad time”:

The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands.

How sad, in other words, that if people were in fact freed from “the worldwide ideological struggle” (though of course they have not been), they would at long last be able to live their lives on their own terms. How sad that without “the struggle for recognition,” people would not have to endure another Pharoah, Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Clinton, Bush, or Obama, and would instead be left to while away the hours in the peaceful pursuit of their own happiness. How sad that without the “purely abstract goal” of one or another statist ideology, grandparents, parents, spouses, children, and grandchildren would not know the “daring, courage, imagination, and idealism” that continues to send their loved ones home in flag-draped cartons. How sad that “environmental concerns” could actually be solved, rather than perpetrated by governments and perpetuated by their bloated “regulatory” agencies. And how sad that “economic calculation and the endless solving of technical problems” – i.e., the day-by-day work of an increasingly complex and thus more richly rewarding world – would not be complicated by the relentless onslaught of the state.

Yes, there is the hope that “centuries of boredom at the end of history might serve to get history started once again,” so that murder and mayhem can once again spice up the dreary “satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands.” What is a cell phone, after all, compared to a land mine? What is communication compared to mutilation? With “no struggle over ‘large’ issues and consequently no need for generals or statesmen,” how much attraction can life hold? What’s the use of living, in other words, if you can’t make a killing killing people?

And a twofold killing it is – over 15 billion people “since the beginning of authentic history,” at a cost of over a thousand trillion dollarsi – according to the research published in a 1914 New York Times piece that also makes the following observation:

Brilliant deeds on the battlefield are done by the man who will take the greatest risks in support of an ideal; the man who will take the greatest risks is, ordinarily, the best of men. So these are least likely to escape. …

… And even though large numbers of the best of men are left, many are destroyed, and of those remaining many have been deteriorated physically by the effort, by the wounds, by the diseases, of wartime; while the economic course of every man participating in a war is interrupted by his service, and, in the majority of cases, such an interruption harms his industrial or professional or mercantile future, thus directly affecting the opportunities that he may offer to the rising generation, which, for a time, depends upon him.

And thus does the killing of the best in war also kill “a certain portion of the incalculable social and educational effort of the ages.”

But no matter. For as war is its very health, the state will have a war if it wants one, never mind how much the people, understandably, do not:

Why, of course, the people don’t want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. … But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country.

[I]t is immaterial for the citizens of any nation where the frontiers of their country are drawn. It is of no concern for anyone whether his country is big or small, and whether it conquers a province or not. The individual citizens do not derive any profit from the conquest of a territory.

It is different with the princes or ruling aristocracies. They can increase their power and their tax revenues by expanding the size of their realms. They can profit from conquest. They are bellicose, while the citizenry is peace loving.

The “princes and ruling aristocracies” will object, of course, that they are not bellicose at all and only want to increase their power in order to be of greater service to humanity. They are public servants, after all, seeking only to do good on their constituents’ behalf. What they do not understand, however – what they dare not even contemplate – is that because Men are cruel, but Man is kind, no men are more cruel than those who would do good with mankind’s money – with the proceeds, that is, of the legalized theft by which “Western liberal democracy” and every other manifestation of the state perpetuate themselves. For as easy as it is to make this theft legal, it is impossible to make it moral, the resulting assault on society being all the worse for the pretence upon which it is based: namely, that legalized theft is the price that must be paid for a civilized society.

And it is because of this vast charade – the biggest of all big lies – that its perpetrators fail to realize that they are but the latest incarnation of the iniquity that has prevailed from time immemorial, that however much the forces of history have been debated over the centuries – are they blind, cyclical, progressive, eschatological, dialectical, etc. – there are actually no forces of history; there is only the history of force. In fact, there is only history as force, the absence of which is not history but biography – the ability to graph, as it were, one’s own bio in cooperative association with one’s fellow human beings.

Its perpetrators do not understand, that is, that their role in history is history, for history is nothing more than the biographies of those who have used the political means to trump the economic means, the producers of which have had their biographies expropriated in the process. As such, history is merely a chronicle of conquest, subjugation, and confiscation, and therefore a glorification of perpetual war for perpetual war. And just as war and the state are one, so, then, are the state and history one.

Therefore, the end of the state will be the end of history.

i Inflation-adjusted as follows: 15 billion battlefield deaths x $3,677 per death in 1914 dollars (see footnote 138) x 20 to correct for the dollar’s lost purchasing power since then (see here) = $1,103,100,000,000,000.My next submission: “The Final Form of Human Government.”

I have the perfect countermeasure to thwart the Indiana police breaking down your door if they smell pot coming from your home and will put an end to the war on drugs.

This invention is my latest free gift to the world in addition to getting the governor of Florida, Rick Scott, to intervene in ending chemtrail pollution spraying over the Sunshine state. Since we sell sunshine to our tourists and want our visitors to go home with a good feeling from their vacation here, and it is our number one industry, the governor stopped the air force from their geo-engineering/radar enhancement exercises. I said to him, we don't care if they do it in other states, just have them stop making our Florida skies disgusting with all the pollution they are spraying on our heads, but I digress.

The narco-police state countermeasure invention I have came up with is "Pot Aroma Flavored Incense". If everyone buys Cannabis smelling punk incense that has no THC in it, the people will have a plausible deniability weapon against the DEA and Indiana police.

Man, bring that shit on. The sudden disappearance of so many Christians would take a huge slice of traffic off the roads, commute times would plummet, and driving might become a pleasure again. Talk about blissful relief.

All news everywhere now is completely worthless and irrelevant except for ONE!

The truth will finally come crashing down in October of this year. There is no escape. It will be impossible to prop these markets through October, impossible.

Comet Elenin is going to be a real nasty little bitch. The earth will pass through its comet tail in October. The solar winds will be cut in half for days. It’s impact will be ENORMOUS. It will cause the earth’s mantle to vibrate, it will create unimaginable weather of wind and rain. It will cause destruction beyond comprehension. Dust particles from the tail will create enormous rainclouds on a global scale. Sea levels everywhere will rise, a great deal higher than right now.

How many Fukushima type nuclear power plants are sitting in the US? All of them are designed to blow sky-high when they lose power. Elenin is going to cause a worldwide blackout and hell will fall on the earth when power is lost everywhere. How many Fukushima’s in the US are priced into this market right now?

SP666 is going to be taken out when Elenin passes, there is no doubt.

We are about to start the perilous journey down the other side of the human population growth impulse spike. Literally billions of people are going to die when Elenin strikes, and world population will continue to tumble when all infrastructure is destroyed and food becomes as scarce as gold.

Bankster criminal elite families have been planning for this event for millennium. They’ve used their central banking thievery machines to steal the world’s gold, created paper mountains of bullshit, all for this event and its all about to go up in smoke, as planned. This comet is old. Only those “elect” few have known of its existence and timing. The old books of Enoch for example, and the old stories of the great flood, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. Even some old jewish texts allude to this comet as being the coming “Messiah”.

It is going to be downplayed by the lying ass media till it smashes everything. There is no stopping it. The destruction to come is not a joke. It will be very very real.

Your disaster shtick seems well practiced. Is this the first 'event' you've thought would be our doom, or have their been others? If so, how many? How many came to pass as you had thought they would?

And when Elenin passes us by, and we experience no more than our usual number of earthquakes and disasters, will you feel very, very stupid? Or just move onto proselytising the next end-of-the-world calamity?

Um, that sounds right at first glance, but only because we only read about people who have done dramatic things or had power. The gods also make the powerless mad before destroying them. That sort of madness is, contrary to the saying, widely and evenly distributed when viewed by incomes..and outcomes.

He wasn't set up in the classical, operational sense of the word. But strategically, yes sir. I'm sure that the powers behind the curtain took notice of his aberration, and shelved it for future use. Just in case he went off the desired path. Just like he/the IMF did in Ireland:

"The IMF, which believes that lenders should pay for their stupidity before it has to reach into its pocket, presented the Irish with a plan to haircut €30 billion of unguaranteed bonds by two-thirds on average. Lenihan was overjoyed, according to a source who was there, telling the IMF team: “You are Ireland’s salvation.”

The deal was torpedoed from an unexpected direction. At a conference call with the G7 finance ministers, the haircut was vetoed by US treasury secretary Timothy Geithner who, as his payment of $13 billion from government-owned AIG to Goldman Sachs showed, believes that bankers take priority over taxpayers. The only one to speak up for the Irish was UK chancellor George Osborne, but Geithner, as always, got his way."

We might never know what he was going to propose the very next day to Frau Merkel, but if this would go against the intentions of the Fed/ECB/GS, his inclination to violent seduction was just the remote kill switch they needed. Maybe Spitzer fell prey to the same concept. Maybe you don't even get to rise to positions like this unless they have a card like this up their sleeve

Great comment Silvarouvres. The banking syndicate will not be diverted from their plan for currency devaluation. The ups and downs, the scares, the market sell offs (one of which is kicking off now) are merely diversions on the path to debasing the currency in order to preserve the banking system. DSKs proposal was logically for society, but not for the banks, so he had to be stopped.

This is really good. And its true – history is written by the winners. If there are no winners, there won't be a narrative justifying any particular political ideology/social organization that otherwise would make little sense. For instance, to obfuscate the slavery that the US brings to its people, the story of escaping the evil Brits is told to the youth. States are completely reliant on the youth as any adult who has reach maturity without sufficient brainwashing will never fight their wars. Thats why its paramount to inform and free the youth. Only abused children become abusive adults and the cycle of violence begins at home.

In its most idealised form, the state is the protector of the people and the great equaliser between the haves and the have-nots.

When the state gets perverted for whatever reason, the ideals of the state also get perverted and no longer function as intended. The author is confusing rampant corruption and the rearing of fascism as the true function of the state, whereas I would submit that the perversion we are now seeing in Western culture is not the true ideal of the Founders' intent, which is to say that all citizens are equal before the law.

In other words, if we had enforced the laws that were written into the Constitution, none of this mess would have happened in the first place.

One can argue then that it was the state that failed to uphold the ideals of the state and allowed the perversion to occur. I am afraid there is no real argument for that point except to say that if ideal men had acted ideally, the state would be the great shining city on the hill we all see in our dreams. It can therefore be extrapolated that as long as there are men to govern others, the perversions will happen amongst men, leaving no form of government ideally pristine.

Precisely why the state is immoral. Since the state has a monopoly on force, only corruptible people can take charge of it – and they get to tax everyone else who doesn't get to have their own military! And lets not forget that each new generation doesn't get to choose whether to pledge fealty to the state – instead they are automatically subsumed into the borg at birth.

Exactly my point. It is not "western liberal democracy" (as the author contends...) or "communism" or any other "...ism" out there that is at fault. No matter what ...ism government becomes, there will always be men to run it, and so and therefore, always dystopia.

That is why our form of government was set up. If the state has a monopoly on force, but the state is ruled by the people who also rule over, and compose, those groups authorized to use force, then we have the least worse compromise.

The bottom line is that a man, by himself, is unlikely to be able to survive in the world by himself, no matter how bootstrappy he is. It would take an incredible amount of luck to never be struck down by injury, poisoning, animal attacks and so on and so forth.

The most important danger the lone man faces is other men. By himself, he stands no chance against multiple foes. He may win a round or two, but in the end, those who band together to steal from him will get what they seek.

That is what government is supposed to be about. It is to setup and enforce a framework which all must abide by. Its main purpose is to protect the right of people to live freely without fear of harm from others.

You can call it something other than government if you want, but that's what it is. There must be a degree of collectivism for humanity to survive. It is unavoidable.

But if you want to throw tantrums about it instead of accepting it, well, you're fortunate enough to live in a system where you can still do that.

Government is institutionalized coercion, nothing more and nothing less.

I refuse to accept the self-justifying arguments of sociopaths that I "need" them to excercise force over me and others in order to allow society to function. If voluntary interaction (i.e., the free market) can work successfully in organizing and controlling a healthy and prosperous economy and society in say 90% of societal interactions, as it demonstrably has many times throughout history, including in this nation, then I refuse to believe that it cannot do so for 100% of all societal interactions. Any kneejerk denial of this suggestion merely reflects a failure of imagination, and perhaps of moral courage as well.

That's all lovely, but you still can't refute the point that, even in anarchy, collectivism is necessary and unavoidable. You may not want to call it government, but that's exactly what it is when people get together, agree on a set of rules, abide by them and provide for eachother's common defense.

No, I do in fact agree with you in all points you state --- but none of that constitutes "collectivism" as it is properly or usually defined, that being centralized societal, political and economic control wielded by an all-powerful State (i.e., gang of thugs).

What you describe, in contrast, could be described as "voluntary association", "the free market", or even "anarcho-syndicalism" --- and I would have no problems with any of them, definitionally or in practice.

Libertopian society requires contract law, without it there is anarchy, ergo, you need to submit to that authority. Call that authority what you will, but if you are honest, you will call it government.

The key lies not in if there is a "holon/collective/coordinating body" but which role and purpose it is used for. The "Whole" should deal with issues common to EVERYONE.... and leave anything that may be something individual, to the individuals or free participation (opt-in).

In current governments, the gov tries to create a complete "package" for every citizen, so that the citizen doesn't need to think and decide much himself. In a more individualistic approach, the gov instead makes only a small but highly common core mandatory.... stuff that really applies to absolutely everyone (well, okay lets say 99%)... and then make everything else optional.

Why do I get the suspicion that the "anarchists" here would be the first to pick up a baseball bat to steal my rabbits? It is ironic that we would need collectivism for protection against the very anarchic "gang of thugs" they so rail against.

I can't see that they would have the patience to pursue a garden anyway.

Sorry, i cannot state my opinion about anarchists without getting junked into oblivion :) I agree that their idea in theory is wonderful.... problem is just that..... well, lets say coordination isn't its strongest feature. It certainly may work great longterm up to a really big city..... beyond that.... well, you can only scale so far with just one level of hierachy :)

Okay, i'm curious - considering your other posts in this thread... have you considered an economic model yet, that is a hybrid of communism and a free market, where the communism part would deal with only a very small subset of the market.... the subset that is common to almost everyone (basic existencial needs)... and the free market dealing with everything else? So, basically, those currently not working in the free market, satisfying their existencial needs themselves communism-style? I could go into more detail about the consequences of such a setup, but i'd first be interested in your views on this.

It's called mixed capitalism and it's practiced often... the problem is that when you combine representative democracy with mixed capitalism (the ability to control aspects of the markets), you're inevitably left with our present system... however you want to define it... we'll call it farcism.

Ultimately, computer nor group of people can make market decisions for the whole... there will be no realization of maximum efficiency and, more importantly, the people in new york will starve while the orange county coffers are full of vegetables. (in other words, they suck on effectiveness too).

The fact is, humans have only developed governmental mechanisms with built in lifespans... eventually the ruled populace gets fed up and cuts off its nose to spite its face. We bounce from individualism to collectivism and everywhere in between... [the obvious problem with individualism (presuming we can all "get along") being threats from external forces, e.g. foreign militaries].

Why do I get the feeling that your socialism would be the first to steal my wealth and legislate my life, stealing liberty in the bargain?

Anarchists have nothing against the concept of social interaction. They just prefer that the market be allowed to determine economic activity. That private property be protected. There is no need for a hierarchy to maintain a free market.

You cannot show a single instance of a governmment that has not enslaved its' people. That has not been run for the benefit of a few. Governments start wars- people don't. Governments seize property, governments create laws that diminish liberty. Governments are inefficient, they create monopolies for the few, they distribute justice in an uneven manner and force action through coercion.

If a benevolent dictator is our best bet but we refuse to allow a dictator, then as government expands, we need more and more "benevolent" persons to fill the expansionary hole... obviously, there are not enough qualified individuals... before very much expansion, it takes on a role of its own and is only as good as its weakest link (which is as weak as possible). It's simply impossible to manage and retain any sort of original purpose... eventually the top starts to wobble... and eventually spins out of control until spun again...

Orly, I think that many are confusing terminology. I am an objective libertarian bordering on anarchist. I believe that government has two functions. Protecting citizens from physical force (from within and without) and enforcement of contract law. Everything else is better done by the individual.

Some anarchists believe in the Mad Max world without realizing that Mad Max had organized armies (or gangs as they could properly be described) that required absolute obedience. The reason is that no matter how hardcore you may think you are, you can not live in a constant state of warfare with your neighbors. That is why families organized into tribes that organised into villages, towns and cities.

The ones that would pick up a baseball bat to steal your rabbits would be the first to meet the ugly side of a shotgun blast.

Sure, I can see what you mean, though you may be a little vague as to what constitutes basic existential needs. I can fill in the gaps and you can tell me where I am wrong...

It seems that the main task of government should be to fill basic existential needs and no more. It is basically the system the Romans developed and the system we have in effect today. The government would raise money from the collective and construct infrastructure that would make the collective's life cleaner, safer and more productive.

An example would be the aqueduct system and sewer treatment facilities. Police (which would include a protective, not aggressive army...) and fire departments would fall under the category, as well. The employees of governmental departments would be paid what the market would bear. The government would charge for these services only enough to pay regular and maintenance employees. Roads and bridges fall into the category, as well.

It is the way it should be, actually, with each local jurisdiction responsible for their share of the upkeep, as well as the administration of the projects.

Notice that the communism stops there- at the place where it is no longer profitable for 99% of the people to pay for the service. People in Louisiana should not be paying for welfare in New York City, nor should a New Yorker be paying for welfare for a down-on-their-luck citizen. Let the good samaritans take care of that.

The concept of localities would virtually eliminate waste in the system. As it stands now, the police force, for example in Texas, is issued from Austin. We have the State boys, county sheriffs, city police and even a police department for each independent school district! What on earth does a school district need with a police department?

So I can see where the idea that there should be a "communist" core for essential services as it does serve everyone. Once the service stops serving everyone, it should not be considered.

Yep, but with one significant difference. I think that the compensation for the work, should less be cash, and more be service/goods produced by precisely this communism-sector. In other words: In the big picture people producing what they existencially need themselves, with little cash involved (it cannot be avoided completely). But even more importantly, i'm thinking about more than just infrastructure. I'm thinking about things like food as well.

Okay, maybe i should first explain the thoughts that did lead me to the idea. I consider the unemployment situation the biggest defect in most economic models nowadays (besides of manipulation). It is a fundamental model defect. Let me explain this with a hypothetical example: We have a small island with a population of 10 people. At first, 10 people are necessary to produce enough bread for everyone. Then via technological advances, one day only 7 people (or 70% time) are needed to produce enough bread for all 10 people.

Question: Ignoring current models, what's the problem? Shouldn't this be "good"? Efficiency increased, less work is needed to feed everyone, so people can use the freed up capacity to do something else. So why should this be a problem?

Well, it becomes a problem in current economic models, because they cannot deal with such a situation. Those models are designed with the assumption in mind, that there is no oversupply in workforce. In short, current markets expect every exchange of goods/services to happen via a "trade".

This is a problem for the collective as well as the individual. It is a problem for the collective because the model anomaly turns the excess workforce into capital losses (because they still depent on goods/services to survive, and thus eat up cash from the gov/taxes). Equally importantly, it is a problem for the individual because it even though there is supposed unemployment protection, there is a very clear message in the minds of workers:

"My existence depends on a job. I am threatened with death if i do not get a job"

What does that mean regarding the power-balance between employers and employees? What more powerful negotiation position can you have, than the other party's existence depending on the success of the "trade"?

People like to point out how markets need to have upper limits for corporation sizes to prevent monopolies.... rarely is it mentioned that the very same problem exists at the bottom end in full force. Phrased another way: As long as people's existence depends on a free market job, there will not be a free market, because the market will at the bottom be highly biased. I could go more into how powerful this aspect is, also politically, but that would make this post even longer than it is already.

Anyways, i then thought about where communism works efficiently, and where it does not work efficiently. The short version is that communism works very efficiently in a mostly static/predictable market with low-diversity at low pressure to innovate.

Well, besides of infrastructure, people really do not need that much in products to exist non-painfully. There is no need for high diversity in foodstuffs, housing, furniture, etc.... i'm not talking about the typical lifestyle of most people here, but really just the basics, and with very low diversity. You know, just enough so that you KNOW that it isn't the end of the world if you do not quickly find a job, and that you can via the communism-sector selfsustain yourself without being *dependent* on employers.

For the collective, the anomaly of unemployed being a cash-sink, would go away (which also has very important moral and social consequences), and this stuff is scalable.

There are multiple problems with a cashless system, as I am sure you are aware. Suppose, for instance, that I perform nursing services in hospital. If I am not paid directly in cash by my employer, we can assume that someone would bring chickens to the bedside as a payment. That is quite unsanitary, as you can imagine!

Or the person who had the operation is a welder and he would be willing to trade some welding for my nursing services. Well, I rarely need any welding around the house, so the barter would break down at that point. Since I have nothing to trade, I would go hungry because I have no friends that have gardens that need any welding done, either.

Enter the voucher system. It says that she worked so many hours at the bedside, so she is entitled to so many credits. It takes so many credits to purchase welding services from a welder. That idea is called money and it is the most efficient way to trade goods and services in a liquid economy. Once the liquidity dries up, i.e., I have no need for welding services, then the economy stops working.

____________

In regard to the unemployment numbers- they are just that: numbers. They don't really mean anything, so models may come and go but they don't mean anything, either.

I can see your point about real unemployment and how it may be skewed, especially at the low end of the scale of business. It is far easier for ATT to hire 1,300 people than it would be for me to hire a single person for my strudel shop. But that idea goes back to the perversion that we discussed earlier.

ATT can hire those people because they have a gigantic cash flow and pay relatively far less in taxes than I would. If our adminstrative overhead were the same, they would still come out way ahead in that instance as well because I have only a small store and must spend most of my time calculating the VAT, while they have an accountant or two to figure it out for all of their businesses.

If you really want to get small businesses rolling, cut the taxes and eliminate the red tape. Small business is where innovation comes from and they should be nurtured as much as we can. Today, small businesses have only a small chance because of the nature of the perversion that is so rampant in the government-assisted, big business model.

How does General Electric pay no taxes? That would be okay with me, as long as Jeff Immelt paid 45% of his income in taxes. But he doesn't.

Meanwhile, a former nurse, now unemployed by choice, pays 30% tax on the profit from every strudel she sells...as she looks through the want ads.

Just a little correction on the cashless thingie. I think there is a big misunderstanding here. My idea wasn't direct exchange of goods/services. Rather, it would work more like this: If someone would want to use this "basic existencial needs"-program, he would receive certain goods and services (choice very limited because of low diversity). He would "pay" for receiving those benefits, by working to produce one of those services/goods. So, instead of nowadays unemployment benefits in cash, the person would receive goods and services, and he would work a rather short time per week (lets say 20h, this stuff can be highly optimized) to produce one of those goods/services. So, there really is no per-good trade involved... but just a very small planned economy, with the consumers and producers being the same people.

The system would be optional, not mandatory. Want to use it? Then do your part to produce the supply. Don't want to use it? Well, then just stay out of it. (EDIT: However, i guess staying out of it would still be to a small extend be offsetted with a tax - reason: some stuff everyone uses... i.e. roads)

I so far have NOT considered highly specialized services and goods in this, like as you mentioned healthcare. I so far don't know how to handle needs that require high training, besides of socialism-style.

I think that the compensation for the work, should less be cash, and more be service/goods produced by precisely this communism-sector.

Provided by whom? The government sector does not produce anything. They manage and obstruct. You can not expect to have a "service cast" that would do all the production and not receive incentivized compensation. Look at the Soviet Union, Cuba or any of the other collectivist societies and you will see complete failure. The pilgrims first tried a collectivist society (they were some of the first) The almost starved to death until they established private property and individual trade.

We have a small island with a population of 10 people. At first, 10 people are necessary to produce enough bread for everyone. Then via technological advances, one day only 7 people (or 70% time) are needed to produce enough bread for all 10 people.

First, the 10 inhabitants would not be all working at producing bread. After all, who grows the wheat, who collects the water, who builds the ovens, who builds the shelter?

In a case were efficiency reduces the immediate need for raw workforce for a specific task, new tasks are created. Luddites and technocrats tried to make the same point you are making and failed. Lets say that one of the 10 people builds a machine that allows 3 man days to be replaced by the machine from the task of making bread. Who builds the machines? Who repairs the machines. What kind of energy are they using? Donkey? Solar? Horse? Who builds and maintains the solar power? Or feeds the horses?

You see, when efficiency displaces labor, new labor needs are created. Always. Look at the 17th century British spinners. The hand looms and frames were replaced by steam powered industrial machines. Within a 30 year period, the textile industry went from 2900 employees to 32,000. Why? Textiles, specifically cotton, became so inexpensive, families were able to buy more clothing and replace worn clothing more often. This created additional demand locally, and foreign trade multiplied the demand globally. History teaches what works and what doesn't. Theory can only guess.

You must try to stop thinking about the needs of the collective been provided by an all powerfull daddy figure. From pharaos to presidents, it has never worked. Only individual trades, on a voluntary basis, can work.

What happens when they have to open a floodgate up river to save a large population/infrastructure down river. Do you let the city down river get destroyed, or do you make that city pay for the damage caused up-river, since that damage was caused to protect them?

A government is defined by it's monopoly on violence or police power. In anarchy, the police power is one, purchased by the person and two, it is competitive- never being centralized. Further, the justice system is competitive as well, ensuring one form of law cannot dictate to all. It is private property that is the key ingredient.

Obviously, you don't either. Free markets are free from external interventions (the state, central banks, etc). We were much more of a free market in the 1860's through 1906 than we have ever been. Try reading history, rather than an article.

Actually, that's debateable. Like the process of Trade, there is supposed to be a natural ssumption that people are 'fair'. Even among groups of people there is an even moral standard; collusion on prices is the 'kernel' of the problem - that should be a principal of evernment regulation...look at the cost of producing Oil v. Price... that was a very loosely defined 'strategic' interest.

And..snakebites and poisoning !!... and government cannot protect from anyone Harm, apart from testing for dangerous chemicals and explosive motors. Otherwise, scissors, thumbs, plain stupidity - how would the government get around that? It's a ridiculous premise, careless wording.

As for 'people to live freely'...what does that even mean?... we have a policy, enshrined for a thousand years... if you green the a bit of the desert, then that part of it becomes your property. People used to be able to do that, can we still just live off-grid? I think we, largely dependent on being subservient to the thrumming systems; in terms of freedom, that's not really progress - we can do more, we can watch more tv, we can buy new clothes, we can drink fruit juices and eat ice-cream - but it comes at a price, so it's not living freely, ergo. So what is 'living freely'? -this is the question everyone is asking.

A very early human struggle was between a life of farming or hunter/gatherer-ing. It's why the Cain and Abel story is written so early in the Jewish/Christian mythology. The life of a hunter/gatherer or nomad has many benefits that are appealing like more freedom and a better diet, less disease. But of course, it is the farming model that prevailed because it allows for the formation of government and armies.

The society that prevails, sadly, is a combination of the one with the most dynamic culture (that's a good thing), adaptable to change, and the one that is the most aggressive and domineering to its neighbours. So, say what you want about fascists, they have an annoying tendency of winning. Once power concentrates, the most unpleasant people are attracted to it, further concentrating power.

Luckily the assholes end up fighting each other, or we'd have continuous uninterrupted asshole rule, as opposed to what we've seen in history which is sporadic flashes of human decency punctuated by systemic suppression by greedy and ambitious shits.

So it's better if we all have free rein to kill whoever we like, ah I hear you say "but, but, but the free market will sort that out. People can form consenting groups for their own protection." Yeah, have enough people in that group and you've got yourself a state.

"Killing whomever we want" is a hysterical falsity. It doesn't happen that way in real life. All those "killed" people would have the ability to defend themselvers, and a lot of friends and relatives with the same abilities.

Your alternative is to have mega-states with the right to kill whoever they want... and with sovereign immunity protecting the evildoers. And, of course, your sacred states consistently fail to protect us from Ted Bundy, narco killers, or even Bin Laden.

A coordinating body (here called the state) is necessary. You cannot manage giant areas of territory without coordination.

However, this relationship does not need to be a one-way street. The whole idea of offloading all decision, regulation, force and so on to one big daddy MUST result in a parasitary relationship. This is not a downfall... it is built into the setup. There is no such thing as "big daddy corrupting"... the whole setup must lead to this, because of the roles in such a relationship.

But as i said, it does not need to be that way. The relationship could be much more cooperative and mutual, by the population doing much of the management, decision, force and so on itself, so that the coordinating body indeed just does coordination and not much more. However, this would require a population that is willing to act selfresponsible and make decisions (and face the consequences).... so, it requires a population that mentally is not just a consumer, but a creator/producer when it comes to politics and economics.

Or phrased another way: A state is necessary, but it does not need to be as "fat" as it is now.... all it needs to do if the population is competent enough, is coordination and strong enforcement of a handful but important simple rules (i.e. in the case of markets, you cannot have an efficient free market, without efficient regulation that defines a "playfield" and enforce it - but without interfering with what happens inside that playfield).

Or even shorter: The state does not need to play the role of a big daddy for a bunch of drones.

The Jeffersonian idea was to have a limited Federal government and have nearly all of the power in the hands of localities and as little as possible centralised anywhere. Even banks were local and not mega-national behemoths, as Hamilton espoused.

The only "Big Brother" possible under that scenario is your next-door neighbour. A nice apple strudel and that patches things right up. As it is now, we have secret service agents pulling seventh-graders out of class for a discussion about a Facebook post. Something tells me he wouldn't be very interested in my apple strudel.

Don't... tempt me Frodo! I dare not take it. Not even to keep it safe. Understand, Frodo. I would use this ring from a desire to do good... But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.

I think this should be the kind of "state" that should exist. Call it state or whatever, it looks like a cooperative. But it has problems... Of course, it mostly likely requires that people behave as responsible citizens, taking decisions. This is the first problem: many people currently care very little about what we could call the management of the society they would have to be involved with. Also, the problem is that in order to be somewhat productive, not everyone can be directly participating in all decisions: otherwise, people would spend all their time making analyses about all kinds of matters. So there must be some kind of deferral of your decisions, as a "normal" citizen which works on something else. Surely there are important decisions where everyone can participate in, but maybe not everyone would have the knowledge to make a really informed decision. As people become more and more specialized in their jobs/tasks/knowledge, the cooperative will inevitably tend to be governed by fewer and fewer people. Wouldn't it? What should be important, always, is that these few people's decisions can at any time be overruled by all the people's. This kind of government, where you can defer your vote for some decisions but at any time you can claim it back for any decision you want to take (decision or vote, whatever you call it), is called participative democracy and it already exists. In the end it requires a mature responsible population, which is what it is all about. Education has always been the problem, and the elites will always try to make new generations less and less prepared to carry such a system, so it can never establish as an alternative.

This is another perversion: the dumbing down of the populace. The United States could have the best schools in the world but we don't...not even close. The reason? The oligarchs are in control of the media and the unions are in control of education.

The unions are in control of the oligarchs as well.

And another thing...why on earth do we need a "collective bargaining" agent in government? What is that about?

It all goes to my point that none of this is the ideal that was developed so long ago. It has been perverted for the gain of the few. That is not government. That is fascism.

Actually, unions play an important role, and in the current setup it would be SHTF without them. When people complain about unions, they argue from the premise of a free market. Correct, in a free market, unions shouldn't exist. Problem: There is no free market at the bottom end right now! Without unions, negotiations are strongly biased against workers, because right now workers *existence* depends on employers. You get no fair free market in an environment, where one party of the trade is under existencial pressure (i explained this in more detail further up in this thread).

So, in other words.... if you want to keep some kind of balance and a free market, then to remove unions, you also need to remove the strong power-bias in employer-employee relationships. When employee can protect themselves, and (important!) can reject an employer's offer without their existence being in danger, then unions are unnecessary and unfair, not earlier.

The problem with that idea is that most of your unions are corrupt and power hungry just as the employers are. The concept of the union in theory may serve the purpose you talk about here, but the reality is they are power hungry money grabbers like the bosses they allegedly protect the worker against.

We could go into more as well and look at the states that have forced union membership with closed shops and take away an individuals right to decide whether they wish to be a member or not....

No Rynack, unions are an unnecessary gang. Employees are able to negotiate with employers without the need of an agent to use the threat of force in their behalf. If an employer decides to abuse his workers, workers move to other jobs until the employer goes out of business. Business can also shut down their doors if labor demands more than the market will handle. Its a two way street. Don't believe me? Look at right to work states here in the US. Still don't believe me? Compare Hong Kong to Greece and tell me which system works and which system doesn't.

This 'mess' is the inevitablity of a declining Empire...we need to get through our gun toting, GMO food infested heads that we are done. And like all states, we are done in because of the flaws in our foundation....

Hello??? Anyone remember how we treated Native Americans, Hawaiians, Africans, Inuit...Vietnamese rice farmers....etc, etc, etc....It was fun while it lasted, but sheeple can't go on grazing in malls while producing nothing more than status reports forever...

hate to tell you brave consumer, but the foundation the 'state' is laid upon will have an effect on generations to come...much like if you eat Dorritos, McDs and drink Coke all day, the children you sire will likely be fat, mall walking oafs in desparate need of ridalin....

Wow, that's so wrong on every level, from genetic to metaphysical, I don't know where to begin. Perhaps you could begin by gaining an understanding of the "science" you spew by reading things other than the backs of cereal boxes.

Or maybe you could look into the concept of "sins of the father" and try a riposte that doesn't so badly miss the mark that you look like a drunken baffoon swatting at pink elephants.

The whole myth about human nature is..... well, a myth anyways. What is this based on? Popularity of certain behaviours? In a civilization with societies that all have very similiar morals, selfreeinforced via upbringing, education and culture?

And even if we hypothetically assume inborn biases, how do we know their strength and "reprogrammability" when all dominant cultures reeinforce them?

And let us not forget: This is not about egoism ("being cruel") vs. altruism ("being kind"). Both is stupid. Egoism is more about sadism ("winning" against others) than it is about personal gain. And altruism just is the counterpart... the host that seeks someone who exploits him (in practice, in such a culture usually everyone is a parasite in one aspect, and a host in another aspects). Both together is collective selfdestruction. No, what is overly missing in this civilization, is fairness and mutualism.... mutualism isn't everyone being altruistic at each other (makes no fucking sense anyways - everyone gives, and no one takes?!?)... mutualism is either interacting for mutual benefit, or mutually not interacting, or defending against parasites. A mutualist that does not defend himself against parasites, is not a mutualist.

Bravo, Rynak, we are in agreement. One of the ugliest concepts is altruism. The self sacrifice in service of others. It makes the individual the sacrificial lamb of anyone willing to take advantage of him/her.

Morality must be based in individual values. Individual values must be based on the individual. Values are, by definition, what is to the benefit of that individual. Morality is individual values logically expanded to include your personal actions and interactions with other individuals. Theology, politics and any other societal modification arts are just theoretical ways to ignore personal values and force altruism and sacrifice. Screw them all.

Pure, unadulterated claptrap. The Constitution gave birth to a nation of white male supremacy. The Elites immediately attempted to gain control through the development of central banks. The Supreme Court used political means to effect it's position in the power structure (marbury v madison) and has continued to manipulate the Constitution for the benefit of the wealthy and corporations.

All governments are created and maintained to benefit the Elites. They write laws to guarantee their position and availablility to power. States are perverted, because the people that form them are perverted in their goals.

It is the elimination of the state that will diminish the corruption of men as a power in the lives of all people. States are defined by control and control is the enemy of liberty.

Someone needs to post an argument of substance as a refutation. Why don't you start with the genocide and theft of property of the American Indian, the gap until 1921 for women's sufferage, Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson-separate but equal, ha- what a joke.

You need to read some books, rather than the propaganda you've been force fed. High School doesn't teach this kind of information. Your inability to mount a significant argument says much about your inability to understand Political Economy.

Orly, I can't believe these idiots junked you for this comment. You are dead on -- corruption has destroyed the US. Our govt needs an immediate courtesy flush of both parties. Although, IMO it's too late. The looting is almost complete. The vultures are just picking the bones clean at this point.

yes the men we have up there are corrupt. but they are us. correct? what was it the late george carlin said in his bit about not voting. he said, that the problem was with the voter and not the politician. in so many ways he is correct. but they don't know any better. for you see, they are gone never to return. there might be a spark in some fema camp in the near future but then it will be too late. if they cannot wake up now, they will never wake up. this is life as we know it. this is reality. the calvary is not coming to our rescue. so, there is a real dirty job that needs to be done dirt cheap. who shall do it?

Or maybe me and my gang will organize a very determined minority and take over. I would be quite tempted if I found a peaceful anarchic civilization. What power and pussy hungry group could resist such a free gift, there for the taking.

Every junk is beautiful and unique snowflake, spewed by someone who cannot deal with reality.

Plenty of people on this site understand - and more do by the day - all government is bullshit. Money is bullshit, too. As long as each exists, it's a sign that man is weak and therefore exploitable. Just sayin'.

Realmoney isn't bullshit. I am still on the fence on whether anarchy would work in practice. Funny thing, though, the government we had worked OK as long as we used real money. As soon as we let the banksters talk us into substituting debt based IOUs for real money, everything started going to hell.

If junks are snowflakes, perhaps the "anarchists" will give me a whole nor'easter.

Anarchists just can't deal with reality. They think in a system reset they'd fare better off than they are now in society. Guess what? Do you know who would win in your reset? Not you.

The same people who are winning, and whom you hate, right now would win again. They would size up the situation and find a way to exploit it to their advantage. Reset doesn't mean a level playing field. There ain't no such thing as a level playing field. Mother nature or god or random chance took care of that. Some people are smarter, more manipulative, more ambitious, greedier, nastier, whatever they need to be to succeed. The lack of those qualities that put you where you are today (disgruntled, angry, looking for someone else to blame) would put you on the bottom if anarchy reigned. That is the harsh reality.

And do you know what would be the eventual outcome of anarchy? Government. It has been in every human society since the species started walking upright. Actually, even before. Those who achieve some level of success would use the power they accumulated to set up a system that perpetuates their control. Like Mao's China. Like Pol Pot's Kampuchea. Like the United States.

You called Orly a "loser" in your first post. Actually, you lose, reset or no reset. Got a complaint? Go talk to Darwin.

Unless peak oil causes the reset. Dmitry Orlov said something along the lines of "Regardless how many gold or silver coins you throw at someone, they probably can`t output much over 300W of power for any extended period of time". Manipulation, greed and ambition don`t create hydrocarbon energy. So a complex and highly entropic control structure (such as we have today) will not work for very long once we come off the plateau and start down the slope. So the anarchists will get what they want, however nobody involved will like it.

Junkies sell their blood because it is their blood ! Poor voters or rich voters should have the right to sell THEIR votes to the highest bidder ! If you don't have the right to sell something......it's not really yours ! Monedas 2011 Common Sense Comedy Tour

Got into an argument with a professor...something about roads. I asked him how much would he sell his ownership interest in the roads for. He got clever and said he would never sell...I said he could have mine for $20. He was not amused...

Didn't even notice the Randolph Borne reference on the first go round. The link on that one isn't working for me, but I just read it a few weeks ago.

You can tell by the raw truthyness in that "war is the health of the state" piece

that he was on his deathbed.

Dos Passos, a badass writer IMO, wrote of him:

A tiny twisted unscared ghost in a black cloak hopping along the grimy old brick and brownstone streets still left in downtown New York, crying out in a shrill soundless giggle:War is the health of the state.